Looking forward to the discussion of your 2nd question. “Is the outcome worth the effort?” It’s difficult to stomach the idea of weaponizing the system of democratic process. But isn’t it capitulation to fail to play the game to counter the radical behavior of GOP?
How is it capitulation to follow the law? We really need to think beyond the immediate temporary potential gain. How do politicians tell voters that we will not follow the law until we get what we want, but don't worry, once we get what we want we'll go back to following the law? Why would anyone believe that? We are either governed by the rule of law or by the rule by gangs and politicians seem to be leaning towards the rule by gangs.
I believe we must follow the law. I also believe that many of the GOP extremist actions to rig the political system HAVE been found to follow the law (even by SCOTUS ever changing interpretations) but violate the spirit of norms that has existed. Those ‘legal’ extremist tactics have been less utilized by Dems so far, it seems to me. Descending to those uses is where the weaponization & potential capitulation of values lies, in my view. Looking forward to Prof Wang’s further discussion.
It must be clear to all that Newson's real point is building his foundation for a run for President in 2028. He wants to be seen as "the Democrat who is actually doing something."
I don't think that the anti-constitutonalism of attacking this state's independent redistricting commission provision is a good look for that.
It should also not be forgotten that the California Democratic Party already once attempted to get the electorate to repeal the independent commission provision; the electorate brushed the attempt back that time. Neither major party in California likes independent redistricting.
This time the context would be quite different of course.
The benefit to Republicans is both small and may backfire.
I think that Democrats should respond by attacking Republicans for being scared. Trump’s and MAGA have invested a lot into being the tough party.
“Voters don’t like paying more because of tariffs. Voters don’t like closing rural hospitals and tax cuts for the rich. Voters don’t like when you deport their neighbors. Voters don’t like covering up the Epstein files and offering immunity to sex traffickers. A brave party would stand up for their actions. The Republican Party hides from angry voters. The Republican Party is so afraid of you they’ll redraw the voting maps to avoid facing you in November. Those cowards will do anything to stay in power. Time to vote them out.”
Looking forward to the discussion of your 2nd question. “Is the outcome worth the effort?” It’s difficult to stomach the idea of weaponizing the system of democratic process. But isn’t it capitulation to fail to play the game to counter the radical behavior of GOP?
How is it capitulation to follow the law? We really need to think beyond the immediate temporary potential gain. How do politicians tell voters that we will not follow the law until we get what we want, but don't worry, once we get what we want we'll go back to following the law? Why would anyone believe that? We are either governed by the rule of law or by the rule by gangs and politicians seem to be leaning towards the rule by gangs.
I believe we must follow the law. I also believe that many of the GOP extremist actions to rig the political system HAVE been found to follow the law (even by SCOTUS ever changing interpretations) but violate the spirit of norms that has existed. Those ‘legal’ extremist tactics have been less utilized by Dems so far, it seems to me. Descending to those uses is where the weaponization & potential capitulation of values lies, in my view. Looking forward to Prof Wang’s further discussion.
assuming there's no vote manipulation.
It must be clear to all that Newson's real point is building his foundation for a run for President in 2028. He wants to be seen as "the Democrat who is actually doing something."
I don't think that the anti-constitutonalism of attacking this state's independent redistricting commission provision is a good look for that.
It should also not be forgotten that the California Democratic Party already once attempted to get the electorate to repeal the independent commission provision; the electorate brushed the attempt back that time. Neither major party in California likes independent redistricting.
This time the context would be quite different of course.
Agree, it's clearly a calculated move. But it's kayfabe, especially if the effects are small.
I am told the advantage could be as large as 5 seats, though I have not seen a demonstrative map that proves the point.
Thanks for this analysis.
The benefit to Republicans is both small and may backfire.
I think that Democrats should respond by attacking Republicans for being scared. Trump’s and MAGA have invested a lot into being the tough party.
“Voters don’t like paying more because of tariffs. Voters don’t like closing rural hospitals and tax cuts for the rich. Voters don’t like when you deport their neighbors. Voters don’t like covering up the Epstein files and offering immunity to sex traffickers. A brave party would stand up for their actions. The Republican Party hides from angry voters. The Republican Party is so afraid of you they’ll redraw the voting maps to avoid facing you in November. Those cowards will do anything to stay in power. Time to vote them out.”